The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile. This is cheap in today's cost of electricity but let's expand this out.

Americans travel some 3.2 Trillion miles per year. This means that (unless you're Russell who cannot deal with numbers) if the entire US used electric vehicles the amount of electricity used would be around 240 Trillion BTU's yearly.

Presently the US generates about 13 quadrillion BTU's each year and this is pretty much FIXED. We have dammed all of the rivers and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy and all of the "green sources" of energy add up to about 2-3% of the generated power.

This means that the use of all electric cars would absorb some .2% of the total amount of electricity generated in this country.

Now that doesn't sound at all that much does it? But that would DOUBLE the amount of electricity used for the total transportation sector of this country. This also includes ALL of the electric trains and rapid transit systems.

There is NO way to reduce the residential, commercial or industrial use of electricity without severely effecting rates.

But people who understand nothing love to tell us how smart that demented old fool Biden is for telling us that we're going 100% electric vehicles. For those of you that don't know it, most of the present nuclear power plants in this country are reaching the end of their lifespan. WILL they be allowed to build replacements in a country where the Russian propaganda is running our present government?

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:23:32 AM UTC+1, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile. This is cheap in today's cost of electricity but let's expand this out.
>
> Americans travel some 3.2 Trillion miles per year. This means that (unless you're Russell who cannot deal with numbers) if the entire US used electric vehicles the amount of electricity used would be around 240 Trillion BTU's yearly.
>
> Presently the US generates about 13 quadrillion BTU's each year and this is pretty much FIXED. We have dammed all of the rivers and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy and all of the "green sources" of energy add up to about 2-3% of the generated power.
>
> This means that the use of all electric cars would absorb some .2% of the total amount of electricity generated in this country.
>
> Now that doesn't sound at all that much does it? But that would DOUBLE the amount of electricity used for the total transportation sector of this country. This also includes ALL of the electric trains and rapid transit systems.
>
> There is NO way to reduce the residential, commercial or industrial use of electricity without severely effecting rates.
>
> But people who understand nothing love to tell us how smart that demented old fool Biden is for telling us that we're going 100% electric vehicles. For those of you that don't know it, most of the present nuclear power plants in this country are reaching the end of their lifespan. WILL they be allowed to build replacements in a country where the Russian propaganda is running our present government?
>
Never mind electric cars, except for a dramatic demonstration like yours above. Elon Musk, who knows more about electric cars, and builds, and sells more electric cars, than anyone else, doesn’t think the future can be all-electric. I presume that’s he’s a clever South African like me (South Africans pull way outside their weight class in intellectual pursuits like original engineering, not something your little friends will understand, Tom, the same way people from the old Yugoslavia and Hungary are smarter than the other mittel-Europeans) and therefore has traced this tomfoolery about “Biden’s non-existent, never to exist” electric cars to their fundaments in Ammonia, Concrete, Steel and Plastics, the four foundations of everything in our world, all four of them prodigious drinkers of fossil fuel in their production, distribution and implementation. You should take your little friend RussellSEaton, the guy who apparently doesn’t even know what his name is but on good days can tell you two and two makes three or five depending on whether respectively the Donkey Party or the Elephant Party is in power, and march him by the ear into the sanctum of Wassily Leontief at Harvard — and see if he knows which end of the input-output table he should hold. One thing is for absolute certain: neither Biden nor his economic advisers know which end of the input-output table one holds.
>
Andre Jute
Was mine really the last generation of economists who were properly trained?
>

On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.

Not even close.
<https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
"Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
to the gallon."

>Americans travel some 3.2 Trillion miles per year.

Nope.
<https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles>
In 2020, Americans traveled 4,934,519,000,000 miles in passenger
vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and not including public transit.
Incidentally, the 2017 distance for bicycle travel was 8,499,000,000
miles.

>This means that if the entire US used electric vehicles the amount of electricity used would be around 240 Trillion BTU's yearly.

Noope. Assuming the average car gets an optimistic 30 miles/gallon.
At 138,500 BTU/per gallon, that's:
5*10^12miles / 30miles/gallon * 138,500 BTU/gal
= 23,000 trillion BTU's

>Presently the US generates about 13 quadrillion BTU's each year and this is pretty much FIXED.

Not exactly. The US consumed about 11.59 quadrillion BTU's in 2020:
<https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/>
Consumption and production are somewhat different in the consumption
can be reduced with the proper financial disincentives.

>We have dammed all of the rivers

I don't recall seeing dams across the major rivers (Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio). Even so, hydro contributes only about 7% of the US
total energy generated.
<https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-basics>
"Hydropower currently accounts for 37% of total U.S. renewable
electricity generation and about 7% of total U.S. electricity
generation."

>and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy

Yep, too risky. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone builds a
string of nuclear power plants along the Mexican border, and sells the
electricity to the US, much like Canada is sell their hydro power to
the US. Kinda like "Not in my back yard" but instead someone else's
back yard.

>and all of the "green sources" of energy add up to about 2-3% of the generated power.

Not even close:
<https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4>
"In 2020, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.6% of total
U.S. energy consumption and about 19.8% of electricity generation."

>This means that the use of all electric cars would absorb some .2% of the total amount of electricity generated in this country.

Nope:
"Myth buster: Electric vehicles will overload the power grid"
<https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid>
"If 80% of all passenger cars become electric, this would lead to a
total increase of 10-15% in electricity consumption."
"...electric vehicles are 5 to 6 times more energy-efficient than the
best internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicle."

I think it might enhance your credibility somewhat if you disclose
your sources of misinformation and math errors.

Speculation deleted...

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:13:45 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> Not even close.
> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> to the gallon."
> >Americans travel some 3.2 Trillion miles per year.
> Nope.
> <https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles>
> In 2020, Americans traveled 4,934,519,000,000 miles in passenger
> vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and not including public transit.
> Incidentally, the 2017 distance for bicycle travel was 8,499,000,000
> miles.
>
> >This means that if the entire US used electric vehicles the amount of electricity used would be around 240 Trillion BTU's yearly.
>
> Noope. Assuming the average car gets an optimistic 30 miles/gallon.
> At 138,500 BTU/per gallon, that's:
> 5*10^12miles / 30miles/gallon * 138,500 BTU/gal
> = 23,000 trillion BTU's
> >Presently the US generates about 13 quadrillion BTU's each year and this is pretty much FIXED.
> Not exactly. The US consumed about 11.59 quadrillion BTU's in 2020:
> <https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/>
> Consumption and production are somewhat different in the consumption
> can be reduced with the proper financial disincentives.
> >We have dammed all of the rivers
> I don't recall seeing dams across the major rivers (Mississippi,
> Missouri, Ohio). Even so, hydro contributes only about 7% of the US
> total energy generated.
> <https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-basics>
> "Hydropower currently accounts for 37% of total U.S. renewable
> electricity generation and about 7% of total U.S. electricity
> generation."
> >and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy
> Yep, too risky. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone builds a
> string of nuclear power plants along the Mexican border, and sells the
> electricity to the US, much like Canada is sell their hydro power to
> the US. Kinda like "Not in my back yard" but instead someone else's
> back yard.
> >and all of the "green sources" of energy add up to about 2-3% of the generated power.
> Not even close:
> <https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4>
> "In 2020, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.6% of total
> U.S. energy consumption and about 19.8% of electricity generation."
> >This means that the use of all electric cars would absorb some .2% of the total amount of electricity generated in this country.
> Nope:
> "Myth buster: Electric vehicles will overload the power grid"
> <https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid>
> "If 80% of all passenger cars become electric, this would lead to a
> total increase of 10-15% in electricity consumption."
> "...electric vehicles are 5 to 6 times more energy-efficient than the
> best internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicle."
>
> I think it might enhance your credibility somewhat if you disclose
> your sources of misinformation and math errors.
>

Now now Jeff, remember andre's sage advice - we must take him and tommy at their word without question, and unless either of them concede then anything you present is just more liberal media lies.
"tommy does science" - just another RBT troll

The only point of disagreement I have with your well-written response is

> >and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy
> Yep, too risky.

Nuclear power has proven safe and reliable throughout the world. More deaths and damage have been caused at oil drilling sites and refineries across the decades - probably orders of magnitude more. Even in the US the worst "disaster" at 3 mile island was contained by the safety systems. Consider France, the worlds largest nuclear power provider - minimal issues: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-accidents/factbox-a-brief-history-of-french-nuclear-accidents-idUSTRE78B59J20110912

I understand the concerns and they _are_ valid, but an empirical review shows the risks to be extremely low. As someone who reviews the safety performance of control systems used in the petroleum industry, I can tell you "we" are far worse than the nuclear industry.

Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>
> Not even close.
> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> to the gallon."

My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
most efficient electric vehicle".

Rolf

On 5/4/2022 10:13 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

<snip>

> Not even close:
> <https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4>
> "In 2020, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.6% of total
> U.S. energy consumption and about 19.8% of electricity generation."

Tom is wrong of course™.

See <https://ecocostsavings.com/electric-car-kwh-per-mile-list/>.

The Tesla Model 3 is the most efficient (0.24 KWH/mi or 0.15 kWH/km or
819 BTU/km). So 1 KWH would get you 4.17 miles. A lot of vehicles are
close to that, only a few hundreths of a KWH/mi different.

The KWH electric rate from PG&E on the EV-B plan is still very high,
24¢/KWH, which works out to about 5.8¢ per mile. A vehicle that gets 40
MPG would cost 7.5¢ per mile if gasoline were $3 per gallon. At $5 per
gallon it's about 12.5¢ per mile. Of course that's just the fuel cost
difference, maintenance costs on electric cars are also much lower than
for gasoline cars. If you live in Santa Clara, which has municipal
power, the KWH rate is 13.3¢ or about 3.2¢/mile for a Tesla Model 3.

I live in an area with a LOT of Teslas. The typical Tesla buyer will
also install solar on their roof at the time of purchase, essentially
reducing their fuel costs to zero (by their way of thinking). Actually
it's below zero due to the way California utilities credit consumers for
electricity that they put pack on the grid (for now, the utilities are
spending big bucks encouraging state legislators to change this).

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
>>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>>
>> Not even close.
>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
>> to the gallon."
>
> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
> most efficient electric vehicle".
>
> Rolf
>

Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 5:49:55 AM UTC-4, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 1:13:45 AM UTC-4, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> > Not even close.
> > <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> > "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> > mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> > to the gallon."
> > >Americans travel some 3.2 Trillion miles per year.
> > Nope.
> > <https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles>
> > In 2020, Americans traveled 4,934,519,000,000 miles in passenger
> > vehicles (cars, trucks, motorcycles) and not including public transit.
> > Incidentally, the 2017 distance for bicycle travel was 8,499,000,000
> > miles.
> >
> > >This means that if the entire US used electric vehicles the amount of electricity used would be around 240 Trillion BTU's yearly.
> >
> > Noope. Assuming the average car gets an optimistic 30 miles/gallon.
> > At 138,500 BTU/per gallon, that's:
> > 5*10^12miles / 30miles/gallon * 138,500 BTU/gal
> > = 23,000 trillion BTU's
> > >Presently the US generates about 13 quadrillion BTU's each year and this is pretty much FIXED.
> > Not exactly. The US consumed about 11.59 quadrillion BTU's in 2020:
> > <https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/>
> > Consumption and production are somewhat different in the consumption
> > can be reduced with the proper financial disincentives.
> > >We have dammed all of the rivers
> > I don't recall seeing dams across the major rivers (Mississippi,
> > Missouri, Ohio). Even so, hydro contributes only about 7% of the US
> > total energy generated.
> > <https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-basics>
> > "Hydropower currently accounts for 37% of total U.S. renewable
> > electricity generation and about 7% of total U.S. electricity
> > generation."
> > >and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy
> > Yep, too risky. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone builds a
> > string of nuclear power plants along the Mexican border, and sells the
> > electricity to the US, much like Canada is sell their hydro power to
> > the US. Kinda like "Not in my back yard" but instead someone else's
> > back yard.
> > >and all of the "green sources" of energy add up to about 2-3% of the generated power.
> > Not even close:
> > <https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4>
> > "In 2020, renewable energy sources accounted for about 12.6% of total
> > U.S. energy consumption and about 19.8% of electricity generation."
> > >This means that the use of all electric cars would absorb some .2% of the total amount of electricity generated in this country.
> > Nope:
> > "Myth buster: Electric vehicles will overload the power grid"
> > <https://www.virta.global/blog/myth-buster-electric-vehicles-will-overload-the-power-grid>
> > "If 80% of all passenger cars become electric, this would lead to a
> > total increase of 10-15% in electricity consumption."
> > "...electric vehicles are 5 to 6 times more energy-efficient than the
> > best internal combustion engines (ICE) vehicle."
> >
> > I think it might enhance your credibility somewhat if you disclose
> > your sources of misinformation and math errors.
> >
> Now now Jeff, remember andre's sage advice - we must take him and tommy at their word without question, and unless either of them concede then anything you present is just more liberal media lies.
> "tommy does science" - just another RBT troll
>
> The only point of disagreement I have with your well-written response is
> > >and we have denied this country the use of nuclear energy
> > Yep, too risky.
> Nuclear power has proven safe and reliable throughout the world. More deaths and damage have been caused at oil drilling sites and refineries across the decades - probably orders of magnitude more.

There's also the coal industry. Mining is a pretty hazardous occupation, although the fatality count has
fallen off in recent years - partly because the use of coal has been dropping.
https://arlweb.msha.gov/stats/centurystats/coalstats.asp

> Even in the US the worst "disaster" at 3 mile island was contained by the safety systems. Consider France, the worlds largest nuclear power provider - minimal issues: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-accidents/factbox-a-brief-history-of-french-nuclear-accidents-idUSTRE78B59J20110912
>
> I understand the concerns and they _are_ valid, but an empirical review shows the risks to be extremely low. As someone who reviews the safety performance of control systems used in the petroleum industry, I can tell you "we" are far worse than the nuclear industry.

I strongly agree. I have hope for newer, smaller designs of nuclear powerplants. The default design seems
far too cumbersome and expensive. And in general, I think distributed energy sources have benefits
over concentrated energy sources.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Rolf Mantel <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> > Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> >> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
> >>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
> >> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> >> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> >> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> >> to the gallon."
> >
> > My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
> > less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
> > most efficient electric vehicle".
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
> rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
> form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?

Ralph is right, of course. People must pay attention to units of measurement.

- Frank Krygowski

Am 05.05.2022 um 17:20 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> Rolf Mantel <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
>>>>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>>>>
>>>> Not even close.
>>>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
>>>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
>>>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
>>>> to the gallon."
>>>
>>> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
>>> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
>>> most efficient electric vehicle".
>>>
>> Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
>> rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
>> form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?
>
> Ralph is right, of course. People must pay attention to units of measurement.

You're right, the vehicle shows kWh / 100km, I was just unthinkingly
repeating the mistyped units from above.

The web link above (which does not work now) never seems to have heared
that the Kona comes in two variants with significantly different energy
consumptions (small baterry with 100kW engine and large battery with
145kW engine), maybe the small version is not on sale in the USA.

Rolf

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:00:14 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> > On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> > <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> >
> > Not even close.
> > <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> > "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> > mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> > to the gallon."
> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
> most efficient electric vehicle".

I am curious to know why every time I look the power use of Teslas up it changes. The numbers I displayed were taken directly from a Tesla site and it was directly next to the BTU calculator so that I could check it. The figure I gave would represent 21.75 KwH per mile. One could suggest that the number I read was in watt hours instead of KwH's but that doesn't figure either since most Tesla's burn 340 watt hours per mile according to the latest reading. I am wondering there they could have possibly gotten 21.7 KwH? Or perhaps the conversion program I used was vastly out of whack.

But none of this changes the central theme. The US is LOSING the ability to expand their power due to extremely poor decisions by the ignorant and foolish radical leftists. And what people like Biden and his radical minions are suggesting would mean that commercial and industrial use of electricity could NOT expand. That means that fewer and fewer people could be employed meaning that the tax rates would have to be raised so that the government (as per a Supreme Court decision) would be required to support those that could not work for a living anymore. That as anyone that understands governmental system knows - is communism. So that gives you the reasoning behind an all electric economy. The idea that we are going to freeze growth in our commercial and industrial areas is proof that people like our communist 5 don't care what happens to this country or its citizens. Frank certainly couldn't care less since until it hits him directly in the pocketbook it is entirely invisible to him. Like the Democrat belief that we should put anti-vaxxers into concentration camps, to him he would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism. Where do you suppose that Scharf gets his survival money - no doubt inherited.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 8:08:46 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> Rolf Mantel <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> > Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> >> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
> >>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
> >> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> >> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> >> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> >> to the gallon."
> >
> > My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
> > less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
> > most efficient electric vehicle".
> >
> > Rolf
> >
> Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
> rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
> form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?

For general comparison you use the international value of energy, the British Thermal Unit. In the USA we tend to use KwH but this makes it difficult for comparisons. KwH is difficult to know for things like a gallon of gasoline.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:19:59 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 05.05.2022 um 17:20 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
> >> Rolf Mantel <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> >>> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
> >>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
> >>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
> >>>>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not even close.
> >>>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
> >>>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
> >>>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
> >>>> to the gallon."
> >>>
> >>> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
> >>> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
> >>> most efficient electric vehicle".
> >>>
> >> Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
> >> rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
> >> form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?
> >
> > Ralph is right, of course. People must pay attention to units of measurement.
> You're right, the vehicle shows kWh / 100km, I was just unthinkingly
> repeating the mistyped units from above.
>
> The web link above (which does not work now) never seems to have heared
> that the Kona comes in two variants with significantly different energy
> consumptions (small baterry with 100kW engine and large battery with
> 145kW engine), maybe the small version is not on sale in the USA.
>
> Rolf
That must be the mistake I made in my calculation since the numbers are correct for 100 Km. Wherever I read that must not have specified 100 km but assumed that people would know that.

On 5/5/2022 12:56 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:00:14 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>>>
>>> Not even close.
>>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
>>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
>>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
>>> to the gallon."
>> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
>> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
>> most efficient electric vehicle".
>
> I am curious to know why every time I look the power use of Teslas up it changes. The numbers I displayed were taken directly from a Tesla site and it was directly next to the BTU calculator so that I could check it. The figure I gave would represent 21.75 KwH per mile. One could suggest that the number I read was in watt hours instead of KwH's but that doesn't figure either since most Tesla's burn 340 watt hours per mile according to the latest reading. I am wondering there they could have possibly gotten 21.7 KwH? Or perhaps the conversion program I used was vastly out of whack.

So many mistakes. So many problems!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/5/2022 1:09 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 9:19:59 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 05.05.2022 um 17:20 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 11:08:46 AM UTC-4, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>> Rolf Mantel <ne...@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>>>>>> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle
>>>>>>> uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even close.
>>>>>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
>>>>>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
>>>>>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
>>>>>> to the gallon."
>>>>>
>>>>> My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
>>>>> less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
>>>>> most efficient electric vehicle".
>>>>>
>>>> Hold on a second here. Are we using the correct units? Watts measures the
>>>> rate of energy delivery (ie: power), but these numbers should be in the
>>>> form of energy/distance. Should these be Watt-hours per mile?
>>>
>>> Ralph is right, of course. People must pay attention to units of measurement.
>> You're right, the vehicle shows kWh / 100km, I was just unthinkingly
>> repeating the mistyped units from above.
>>
>> The web link above (which does not work now) never seems to have heared
>> that the Kona comes in two variants with significantly different energy
>> consumptions (small baterry with 100kW engine and large battery with
>> 145kW engine), maybe the small version is not on sale in the USA.
>>
>> Rolf
> That must be the mistake I made in my calculation since the numbers are correct for 100 Km. Wherever I read that must not have specified 100 km but assumed that people would know that.

So many mistakes! So many problems!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/5/2022 1:01 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>
> For general comparison you use the international value of energy, the British Thermal Unit. In the USA we tend to use KwH but this makes it difficult for comparisons. KwH is difficult to know for things like a gallon of gasoline.

No, Tom, wrong again. The BTU is used in the U.S. and a couple other
places, but that use has been declining for decades.

SI is the language of science and, increasingly, technology.

See
https://www.grundfos.com/ke/learn/research-and-insights/british-thermal-unit

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 5 May 2022 13:00:09 +0200, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:

>Am 05.05.2022 um 07:13 schrieb Jeff Liebermann:
>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 17:23:30 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
>> <cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The average Tesla which is about the most efficient electric vehicle uses 74,214 BTU's to travel ONE mile.
>>
>> Not even close.
>> <https://www.pv-systems.org/article/comparing-electric-hybrid-and-gas-powered-vehicles>
>> "Jim's all-electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S requires 320 watts per
>> mile, or 1,092 BTUs per mile, which would be equivalent to 110 miles
>> to the gallon."

>My Hyundai Kona uses just under 200 wtts per mile at highway speeds and
>less than 160 watts per mile in town, so Tesla certainly is not "the
>most efficient electric vehicle".
>
>Rolf

I used the first numbers I could find on Tesla which did not come from
Wikipedia and used Tom's favored imperial BTU units of measure. I
would have prefered SI units. Tom stated the "average Tesla"
(whatever model that might be) is "about the most efficient". That
suggests that there are other Tesla cars which might be more efficient
and allows for other brands to be even more efficient. Mixing
"average" and "most efficient" in the same sentence is a bit
problematic, but I was more interested in his numerical errors than
his amazing facts or conclusions.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.

Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?

funkma...@hotmail.com <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
>
> Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
>
>
>

It’s like, you know, the other communism…

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:35:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> funkma...@hotmail.com <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
> >
> > Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
> >
> >
> >
> It’s like, you know, the other communism…
Frank has made comments many times here about his beliefs that are clearly socialist. The ONLY difference between socialism and communism is that when the Russian socialists were registering as a party, "socialist" was already taken and so they registered as "communist". I have pretty poor regard for people that believe that they should be supported by working people.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:01:35 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:35:38 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > funkma...@hotmail.com <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
> > >
> > > Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > It’s like, you know, the other communism…
> Frank has made comments many times here about his beliefs that are clearly socialist. The ONLY difference between socialism and communism is that when the Russian socialists were registering as a party, "socialist" was already taken and so they registered as "communist".

Yeah, that's the _only_ difference.....

> I have pretty poor regard for people that believe that they should be supported by working people.

Said the guy living off SSI.....

On 5/5/2022 12:35 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> funkma...@hotmail.com <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
>>
>> Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
>>
> It’s like, you know, the other communism…

Reminds me of Marjorie Taylor Greene advocating that Trump institute
"Marshall Law."

On 5/5/2022 2:24 PM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
>
> Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
>
>

Their self-identity as 'progressive' maybe?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A couple of interesting things from this thread:

1. Nobody wants to defend Poor President Biden, not even the greenies.

2. The usual little wankers have altogether bypassed the serious damage Ocasio-Cortez and Biden are doing to the entire world, to argue about irrelevant details and typos, charging hard to prove Tom wrong, no matter how small the matter, mutter mutter mutter under their breaths in their obsession with proving themselves superior to Tom. I wonder if they ever wonder why it should be necessary to prove themselves superior to Tom, what years of fruitless effort says to the rest of the world about their self-images.

3. If you wonder why RBT shrinks while my supposedly much smaller niche for writers has rising thirty thousand members and turns away more unsuitable applicants twice a day than RBT has active members, wonder no more. The pettyfogging hairsplitting nastiness in this thread is all the evidence required to point fingers at RBT contributors by name.

4. Yesterday’s greenies, having screwed up almost free energy, and everything that followed from it, and having killed hundreds of millions of trees and ditto of birds, are now all hung-ho for nuclear power. What a turnabout! What a bunch of hypocritical clowns.

Andre Jute
Just thought I’d mention these few points.

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
> On 5/5/2022 12:35 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > funkma...@hotmail.com <funkma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 12:56:15 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Frank .....would gladly sacrifice his children on the alter of communism.
> >>
> >> Frank, what does an 'alter' of communsim look like?
> >>
> > It’s like, you know, the other communism…
> Reminds me of Marjorie Taylor Greene advocating that Trump institute
> "Marshall Law."
Marshall who? :)